Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]

Clause 296

Long-distance routes

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 296, page 192, line 21, at end insert
(3A) Where a person with a relevant interest in affected land has requested Natural England to provide a map showing the landward boundary of the relevant coastal margin, but the report contains a description of that boundary pursuant to subsection (3)(b) instead of a map, the report must also contain a statement of Natural Englands reasons for declining to comply with the persons request for a map..
The amendment would provide for owners and occupiers of land to make a formal request to Natural England for a map. It would require Natural England, if it declined such a request, to state its reasons for doing so in its report to the Secretary of State. That would discourage vexatious requests and encourage close co-operation between the owner or occupier of land and Natural England to identify the most appropriate method of defining the extent of the coastal margin.
As the Bill stands, unlike the coastal route itself, the spreading room associated with it is not automatically subject to a mapping requirement. Instead, we are to rely primarily on the descriptions in the reports made by Natural England to the Secretary of State. Given that a reduced liability will be associated with spreading room, it is all the more important that there be clarity on legal responsibility, to protect the landowner or occupier of the land and the user. A textual description alone, especially in respect of complicated areas, may result in considerable confusion in the minds of all users: the landowners, occupiers and walkers.
Some progress was made on the issue in another place. An amendment to clause 296 has given owners and occupiers the right to request a map if one has been produced to show the extent of any spreading room on their land. However, that amendment does not adequately deal with the problem, as it remains the case that Natural England is not committed to produce a map in the first place. That is an essential difference with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
This simple amendment would deal with a problem that is likely to arise, without individuals having to invoke the appeals process. It would be absurd for owners and occupiers to have to invoke the new objection procedure merely to obtain a map to clarify the boundaries of spreading room on their land. If genuine doubts are expressed by owners and occupiers about the clarity of any description of the boundaries of spreading room, Natural England should consult them closely and look favourably on any reasonable request for mapping.

Andrew George: I support the amendment. I cannot see how any progress could be made in any consultation regarding a proposal for a coastal route, particularly in relation to spreading room, unless it was made clear where the spreading room would extend. At many places along the coast, there is no obvious physical boundary to any potential spreading room. If the spreading room were to spread inland as well as in a seaward direction, because of the physical constraint created by a path that would need to be very close to a cliff line or to the coast to achieve the spreading room required, there would often be no clear visual or physical boundary to guide anyone on their access rights.
The amendment is important, because the uncertainty created by the lack of a clear mapping exercise could result in confusion and dispute, which would be left to the landowner to resolve on each and every occasion when a user of that coastal access demonstrated their lack of clarity and certainty about the extent of the spreading room. So I hope that the Minister reflects carefully on the proposal and considers its reasonableness.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I think that I can provide reassurance. I take seriously the concerns of the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives. I agree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Newbury about the need to avoid confusion. We need to avoid confusion, but we also need to avoid mapping for mappings sake, with all the resource and funding implications, particularly if there are other ways in which that clarity can be given and where absolute mapping can be avoided.
Let me try to explain how that might work. Natural England will be required to describe the route in reports proposed under section 51 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The boundaries of the coastal margin must be clear in the report, so that those with the relevant interest can make representations and objections and the Secretary of State is sufficiently informed to be able to make a determination on the report. In light of the concerns that were expressed in the other place, and recognising that the clarity of the location of the route and coastal margin is an important issue to both landowners and users alike, we introduced an amendment to require Natural England to include in its coastal access report, under clause 296, a map to show a landward boundary of the relevant coastal land where it was unable to provide a description of the boundary sufficient to identify the relevant coastal margin. Let me just repeat that Natural England must include such a map when it is unable to provide a description of a boundary, which the hon. Member for St. Ives was talking about, that is sufficient to identify the relevant coastal margin.
We talked earlier about descriptions of physical features. We have all been out walking along the coastline and in other areas. We said that traditional stone walls, trenches or ditches are highly unlikely to be easily shiftable or mutable overnight. On one of my favourite walks, I go along the outer limit of a hill fort near a cliff within that sort of spreading room area where there is access. I walk there with my children, and it is enjoyable to go into the hill fort and tell them about its history. We could define its area by the outer limit of the ditches and its raised enclosures, hedgerows and so on. Those sorts of things are pretty clearly identifiable, but the amendment that we introduced in the other place dealt with circumstances where Natural England could not provide a description of the boundary with sufficient clarity to determine the relevant coastal margin.
We have made it clear that we do not believe that maps will be necessary for clarity about where the coastal margin lies in most situations. We expect that the vast majority of Natural Englands descriptions of the margin will be sufficient to suit all parties, but I acknowledge that it may be necessary for it to provide a map to help to clarify certain situationsfor example, where the coastal landscape is complex or difficult to describe in words.
In addition, a map may also be useful where Natural England uses its discretion for the margin on the landward side of the route to extend to a physical feature, as set out in section 55D(2) of the 1949 Act, where the feature is not immediately apparent to the eye. The hill fort that I mentioned is pretty darn clear and has been there for a few thousand years. It would be pretty hard to miss those humps and ditches. However, if an archaeological feature or something else is referred to that cannot be seen by the untrained eye, it makes sense to produce a map. It would not be sensible or appropriate for Natural England to be required to engage in what would beif it was done on every occasion, let us be frankan expensive mapping process, when the money could be better spent on matters such as better interpretation facilities of the coast, better signage or work to facilitate good access.

Hugo Swire: I am surprised to hear the Minister say how expensive it would be to provide the maps, given that it is pretty easy to map nowadays with satellite usage. Google Maps, for example, does quite a good job. What sort of figure does he have in mind to produce a comprehensive map?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We do not have a figure, which is one of the amendments problems. The funding that we have suggested for the coastal path and the coastal margin over the 10-year period is adequate and has an element of mapping within it. To do that universally would require additional resources. However, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that one of the commercial providers, such as Ordnance Survey, will undertake to do it in detail. The coastal margin beyond the coastal path, which may be a path with a couple of metres either side, will not always be massive. It may be quite narrow and may not be mappable by Ordnance Survey.

Hugo Swire: The Minister has said on several occasions during the past few minutes that a substantial cost would be unjustifiable. His Department must have made a stab at what the cost will be.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will try to return to that. I do not think that we have an accurate figure, but it is reasonable to say that the cost of mapping, in terms of its resource implications, will be a burden for Natural England that could be put into other important parts of the coastal network, not least the aspects that we have already described, such as interpretation for visitors and tourists, signage, seasonal variations and so on. There will be a resource implication one way or the other.
As I have saidI will go into some more detailit is perfectly within Natural Englands remit to produce maps where they are needed. It should be for Natural England to decide whether a map is required, because it will be best placed to do that. I would also expect that the question of a map will be raised during any early discussions with a routes landowner. A conversation should be held between the relevant parties about the best approach to the circumstances surrounding that stretch of coast. I would also expect Natural England to deal sympathetically with landowners concerns. Should there be a reasonable expectation to produce a map and Natural England decide that it is not required, I would expect it to explain in writing why it made that decision. I do not believe that that needs to be covered by the Bill, because I firmly believe that the system will work well in practice.
However, recognising the genuine concerns of landowners, I am happy to keep the system under review and ask Natural England to report back within five years. That will provide an incentive if it is neededI do not think that it isto Natural England to act reasonably, as I strongly expect it to in any case. If there are problems in practice, we will find a way to deal with them. In light of that, as well as the available flexibility to introduce mapping and the fact that, in most cases, that will be agreed, the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Newbury does not need to be included in the Bill. I am convinced that the amendments that we have already included to assure landowners and members of the Committee will be sufficient.

Hugo Swire: Can the Minister assure the Committee that, if there is a dispute between the landowner and Natural England about the route or the spreading room and a map is produced at the insistence of the landowner, none of the expense would fall on the landowner?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The expense of mapping would fall on Natural England, which is the converse of the point that we were just discussing. It is ready to do that, so that is not a problem. The issue is whether Natural England should have to map every single part, because the matters under discussion are coastal margins and aspects of spreading room. Most of that will be done via the process that we have described through genuine consultation with landowners. When features such as a wall or the edge of a hill fort cannot clearly be identified, we would expect Natural England to introduce mapping for the benefit of the landowner. With those strong reassurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon: The main plank of the Ministers argument seems to be cost. He might have given us more detail on the costs. I notice that in Natural Englands draft scheme, which I seem to be quoting from the whole time, there are some excellent maps, liftedif the small print is to be believedfrom Ordnance Survey. I suspect that they were a desktop operation. What they try to achieve and to show is clear, and so I suspect that the cost is not massive.
Throughout this part of the Bill, we are being asked to put a lot of faith in Natural Englands ability to come up with the right balance. I am happy to go along with the Ministers assurances of a four-yearly review, which the Conservative party would undertake if it were in government. We would be keen to ensure that Natural England was operating in a proportionate way, and showing consideration for the fact that we are setting new parameters for peoples livelihoods and businesses and placing new factors in their lives. In some cases, those represent a considerable imposition on members of the public, and in others little. It is important that we get that balance right.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this is important for landowners, but curiously also for those who might use the path.

Richard Benyon: Absolutely. That is why I referred to a balance. There are limits to the textual description that one can offer, and in such circumstances a map is required. I am prepared, with the Ministers assurances, to put faith in Natural England and trust that whenever it feels that maps are required, to show consideration for all sides in the argument, it will make them available. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 296, page 193, line 29, at end insert
55EA Changes in land use
(1) Any person with a relevant interest in land may require Natural England to review a coastal access report; and reasons for review may include
(a) proposed or actual changes in the use of land;
(b) review of existing directions made under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the CROW Act for the exclusion or restriction of the right of access;
(c) proposed new directions under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the CROW Act for the exclusion or restriction of the right of access
(2) Persons with a relevant interest may appeal to the appointed person as set out in Schedule 19 against the refusal of Natural England to
(a) undertake the review;
(b) undertake the review within timescales specified by regulation;
(c) amend the coastal access report..
It is me again, I am afraid, Mr. Pope. With this amendment we seek to examine again the relationship between the proposed coastal path and the planning system. Despite much discussion on this on Report in another place, and a paper from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is still unclear to many people how the relationship between the coastal margin and the planning system will work. Will, for example, the coastal path or the coastal margin be a material consideration for planning purposes? Will designation of either serve to restrict or limit development? What guidance will be provided to local planning authorities? We discussed some of those questions this morning, but some of them still need to be answered. The Minister has suggested that the point of designating coastal access under the CROW Act 2000 was that it could be flexible and accommodate changes in land use over time. However, he was less clear about how that would be communicated to local planning authorities.
There is a concern, which was expressed well by Lord Cameron in Committee in another place:
the key to a healthy rural economy is diversity, flexibility and continuous response to the market place...However, the danger...is that the current, in other words the first, coastal route, could easily be given a sacrosanct status in the minds of the planners, and the proposed development will be forced to accommodate the existing route...What should happen is that the coastal route should be adjusted to the development.[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1397.]
In addition, if the development is permitted, or if the landowner changes the use of his land, there is no right in the Bill and no process set out by which landowners can require Natural England to review the coastal access reports. Although Natural England has the ability to review the reports, it is at its discretion. That may cause problems especially for smaller landowners or businesses that may end up trying to manage changes in their business alongside unchanged access because no review of the coastal access report has been undertaken. Lord Davis accepted that land managers must have flexibility, so that they can change the use of their land as they need to. There therefore needs to be some process in place so that Natural England can be required to review reports when those changes arise.
Our amendment would help to remove uncertainty over future changes in land use by ensuring that the Bill enables landowners to request a review of a report to take account of the changes. It is a sensible and necessary safeguard. If not, owners will have to wait until Natural England chooses to review a report, which is likely to stifle coastal businesses, particularly those where only small changes are required to enable them to continue to grow and thrive. Failure to include such a provision in the Bill will cast doubt on the Governments stated commitment to ensure that businesses will have the flexibility to adapt and change.

Hugo Swire: The most important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was in the final bit of his peroration, which is whether this Government are serious about being on the side of businesses, be they small or large, particularly at a time when businesses up and down the country are struggling, especially tourist and agricultural-related ones. The Minister needs to pause and think whether he wishes to underscore his Governments oft-repeated remark that they are supportive of businesses.
The whole issue of the Bill is one of fairness and balance. It would be good to see an absence of vindictiveness and fixed positioning. The Bill is not only about access to the coastto which all parties are signed upbut about ensuring that there is a fair compensatory scheme for those who will suffer and about balancing the rights of the landowner and the farmer with those of people who wish to make use of the facility. As the Bill is currently constructed, the rights are not balanced. That would be greatly improved if the amendment was included in the Bill, as it underscores flexibility.
As the seascape and landscape change over generations, so may the requirements of the landowner to take advantage of the coastal changes. The Minister referred to hill forts. Well, there was not always a hill fort there, but it is now something that needs to be preserved. Likewise, if students of John Fowless The French Lieutenants Woman walked that wonderful bit of the south-west coastal path between Seaton in my constituency and Uplymethe famous Undercliffwhich is the one of the great walks in the UK, I would submit, they would be aware of the slip at Bindon. The Bindon slip was a great tourist attraction in the 19th century, when an enormous slippage of land created Goat island, which itself became a huge tourist attraction. Physically, the landscape was changing. Without the ability in the Bill to change or re-examine coastal accessif it was fixed in stonethat could not have happened.
There are other uses that landowners may want to change, such as the planting of trees for shelter, some protective work against the elements and walling and fencing to keep livestock in. Such work will not necessarily happen often, but unless it is in the Bill, it will not happen at all, because there will be no inherent flexibility.

Huw Irranca-Davies: If a landownerI have done this on land that I own, which is not on the coastal stripwere to bring forward a proposal, for example, to plant deciduous, woodland trees, which would diminish our carbon footprint and enhance biodiversity, I suspect that Natural England, as our statutory and principal adviser on conservation, would be banging on the door and offering to work with that landowner. The Bill has the flexibility for that.

Hugo Swire: Natural England might do that, but it might involve an alteration to the spreading room or indeed the access, which is surely the point. We need a clause that can cover any eventuality. Just as the Minister prayed in aid the fact that there was no need to have universal mapping, because the occasions when a dispute would need to be settled in that way would be few and far between, likewise, the provision might be used on very few occasions, but it needs to be in Bill. We are not taking a strong position, but encouraging grown-up flexibility, which should be the keystone in making this a workable piece of legislation.

Ann McKechin: I welcome the debate on the amendment, but let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of being vindictive or having a fixed positionnothing in our debate so far on the Bill has provided evidence of that. We are certainly on the side of promoting business and tourism. One of the major reasons why people have pointed to the benefit of greater coastal access is that it is likely to lead to substantial growth in local economiesparticularly in the tourism business. Each year in this country, over 70 million trips are made to the coast, with over £1.4 billion being spent. That helps to support a large number of small businesses, particularly in Devon, Cornwall and other parts of the country with quite vulnerable economies and where the tourism industry is key and vital. The Bill is tourisms friend, not its enemy.
I recognise the reasoning behind amendment 49, which would allow any person with a relevant interest in land to trigger a review on certain grounds. Natural England is already able to review a report if it thinks that necessary. Provisions in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and in the Bill envisage that Natural England will do that of its own volition. Section 55(2) of the 1949 Act also gives the Secretary of State the discretion to review the report. He may do that if it is brought to his attention by landlords, businesses or the general economy that issues need change.
Under the CROW Act there is nothing to prevent land from becoming excepted land under schedule 1 by reason of development. I reassure the hon. Member for Newbury again that there is nothing in the nature of the provision to restrict development or change. He also mentioned material considerations. The court rulings on this issue and under planning law have held that virtually anything can be a material consideration in a planning case, so we can use wide discretion in defining that. That would be the guiding factor in any challenge.
Chapter 2 of the CROW Act already contains mechanisms for a landowner to apply for new restrictions and exclusions of access for certain reasons. Those will remain in place for the coastal margin with certain modifications to take account of the coastal situation.

Richard Benyon: I hope that before the Minister sits down she will explain what guidance the Government or, through them, Natural England will provide to local planning authorities on how they should view the relationship between this provision and possible future developments.

Ann McKechin: I will come to that.
There is also a right of appeal in the CROW Act against a refusal to make a direction, which will be preserved for the coastal margin. That is an important protection. Natural England also has a power to provide an alternative route to the ordinary route during any period in which access to the ordinary route is excluded by reason of a direction for an exclusion or restriction. There is no particular need for an additional review of exclusions and directions.
I recognise the concerns expressed in the other place about the impact of development on the route, where the route could later be interrupted by development. Those concerns may lie behind the amendment. The new right of access to coastal land given under provisions in the CROW Act is a flexible right to allow for the changes in land use. We are holding talks at present with the Department for Communities and Local Government on the nature of the guidance that will be provided to local authorities in terms of the Planning Act.
The consultation, which we discussed in our debate on amendments 42 and 55 and which Natural England will undertake prior to drawing up a coastal access report, will identify likely new developments so that it can take them into account when drawing up the proposals. It is unlikely that Natural England will not be aware of nationally significant developments. Should there be developments after the route has been put in place, Natural England will have a power under section 55 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to draw up a report proposing a variation of the route, subject to the full consultation and representation process. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that there already is adequate provision to cater for any developments that may affect the route, including actionby the Secretary of State under the 1949 Act. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon: That shows why this is a subsidiary piece of the Bill. A body of effort quite rightly went into preparing for the marine Bill, which we all want to see on the statute books as quickly as possible, but this part of the Bill has not been properly thought through. It has been brought to this stage of the parliamentary process without proper consultation with planning authorities and I can guarantee that some planning authorities will interpret it in a completely different way from others. I just do not believe that this can be allowed to drift in this way. I therefore think our amendment is right. It secures a requirement on the Government to develop and clearly state that relationship with the planning system.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Andrew George: On a point of order, Mr. Pope. Could you clarify whether Government amendments 60 and 61 have been withdrawn?

Greg Pope: We have not reached them yet. They were grouped with an earlier amendment for debate.

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 296, page 196, line 23, at end insert
(3) Nothing in this section shall preclude a person with a relevant interest in affected land from making an appeal under section 30 of the CROW Act for an exclusion or restriction of the right of access at a subsequent date after approved proposals have been implemented..
Although we welcome the inclusion of amendments made in another place to rectify the fundamental omission from the Bill of an independent appeals process, we remain concerned that there may be cases after the establishment phase, possibly several years later, in which changes to circumstances make adjustments to local land management necessary. For example, walkers exercise of their right of access might prove different from what was expected, or, if ownership of the land changes, the new owner might want to manage the land differently. Perhaps the physical features of the coast itself will have altered over time due to erosion, climate change and so on, a factor noted in the guidance.
It would be desirable, of course, for adjustments to exclusions and restrictions to the right of access to be put in place by agreement with Natural England and/or the local access authority. However, where no such agreement can be achieved, it is important that occupiers should be able to appeal against a refusal by Natural England to alter a restriction or exclusion regime, as occupiers of open country can do currently under sections 24 and 30 of the CROW Act. Our amendments intention is simply to confirm that owners and occupiers of land and those on coastal margin will be able to appeal against refusals of their applications for changes in the exclusions and restrictions regime in the same way currently allowed in relation to open country under the CROW Act.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We might be able to deal with this relatively quickly. I will give an assurance right at the outset, because I think that the issue comes down to how the CROW Act can be used. This Government have no intention of amending the provisions for appeals in section 30 of CROW, to which I will turn in a moment. Any such amendment would be made under a section 3A order, which would itself be subject to affirmative resolution in Parliament, and I am sure that that would inspire lively debate. It is not the Governments intention to change the categories of person who might make an application for restrictions and exclusions under section 24 of the CROW Act, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, if he were in my place, would have no intention of amending them.
Having said that at the outset, I will go into detail. Clause 296 inserts new sections into the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to provide for the coastal route. New section 55D(5) requires Natural England to identify and include in a coastal access report all restrictions and exclusions that would be necessary if the coastal access report were approved. Landowners and others may also make representations on the final report, including proposals for additional exclusions and restrictions or changes to those proposed by Natural England.
In addition, as we have discussed, those with an interest in affected land may make objections on certain grounds, including the inclusion or failure to include a proposal for a restriction or exclusion. New section 55F(2) requires Natural England to make directions relating to any exclusions or restrictions in accordance with its proposals set out in an approved coastal access report, or with any variations of those proposals made by the Secretary of State. Taken together, the provisions require all exclusions and restrictions necessary at the time when the coastal access report was drawn up to be included in the report and directions to be given putting in place the exclusions or restrictions proposed in the report.
Subsequent changes to the situation necessitating new or different restrictions or exclusions are catered for in sections 24 and 25 of CROW, under which a person with an interest in any land may make an application for an exclusion or restriction of access for land management purposes. We debated that to some extent in earlier clauses, and I have made clear my intention not to revisit it. The applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State where the relevant authority fails to make a direction in accordance with the application.
Amendment 45 would insert a new subsection to section 55J, to provide that the new provisions inserted into the 1949 Act by clause 296 do not preclude a person with a relevant interest in affected land from appealing against a decision to refuse application from an exclusion or restriction of access after the approved proposals and report have been implemented.
I say to the Committee, as I have said in our earlier discussions on relevant interests, that those with relevant interests, as defined in section 45 of the CROW Act, will have the same rights as they do on CROW land to apply for restrictions and exclusions of access for land management reasons. Natural England must issue a direction for a restriction or an exclusion if it is necessary and access cannot be suitably managed in any other way. If the application is turned down or a direction proposed by Natural England is not in accordance with the terms of that application, there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State under section 30 of the CROW Act.
I repeat that it is not the Governments intention to make changes to the categories of people who may make applications for restrictions and exclusions under section 24 of the CROW Act. Once again, I make it clear that the Government do not intend to amend the provisions for appeals in section 30 of the CROW Act. As I have said, any such amendment would be made under a section 3A order, which itself would be subject to the affirmative resolution process in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, any such amendment would come under a fair degree of scrutiny and we have no intention of making any such amendment. We have already indicated the main measures that we intend an order, under section 3A, to contain. We will consult on these proposals before submitting them to Parliament. I have already clarified what matters we do not consider relevant to bring forward.
We believe that the extensive consultation and representations process before the position of the coastal route is determined, combined with those provisions in the CROW Act for a relevant interest to apply for restrictions or exclusions to access, will indeed create that principled point behind the Bill, which is getting that fair balance in ensuring that all views are appropriately considered.
Having given that clarification and reassurance, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon: The Ministers words are on the record and I am happy that that clarification has been given. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Richard Benyon: Before we leave clause 296, may I ask the Minister to give assurances about the physical feature issue of a coastal margin? There is concern about certain areas where there is no definable point at which the spreading room could be deemed to be finished. There are plenty of places where, for example, a large field runs down to the coast. What I do not want to see is landowners rushing before the Bill comes in to place fences in what were formerly open fields to reduce both the visual and physical amenity for walkers and anyone else who enjoys that part of the countryside. Therefore, some explanation needs to be given about what features constitute a limit to where the spreading room finishes.
I suspect that we will come on to this issue when we discuss amendment 66, in respect of park land. However, it is conceivable that there are areas where it would be impossible for the walker to determine right of access, unless enormous amounts of effort are made on signage and possibly even on creating barriers that none of us want to see. I would welcome any explanation that the Minister could give on that issue.

Huw Irranca-Davies: To expand on the debate that we had on this issue earlier, it is certainly conceivable that, for example, where there is no clear physical feature that can be easily identified, Natural England, in consultation with the landowner, could flag up an area in one way or another to identify exactly where the spreading room is. That possibility is there.
I concur with the hon. Gentleman. It had also gone through my mind that a concerned landowner might rush to move that field fence. I am not saying that many would doI do not think so. But if they were worried about where the spreading was going, that picket and wire fence might suddenly go 10 yd seaward. I do not think that would happen, by and large. Clear physical features can be described; an absence of clear physical features enters the realms of mapping, or using some other flexible approach such as determination by a marker. A variety of approaches can be used to reassure landowners as well as walkers about where they should walk and for Natural England to do a proper localised approach to bring in this fore edge, which I think we would all want to do.
Finally, I would not want to limit the flexibility to use appropriate physical features. It may not be easy to identify them all in advance. However, Natural England may want to consider whether it can give clarification in its scheme, which will set out in more detail the approach it wants to take in implementing this part of its coastal access duty. The scheme will be subject to public consultation once the Bill becomes law. That will be a chance for all Committee Members and others with concerns to have an input into the final scheme, including where the boundary is on the landward side. The final scheme has to be approved by the Secretary of State. I urge Committee Members and those listening to our deliberations who have concerns to input into that consultation so that the final scheme is clear.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful for that explanation from the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 296 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 19

Schedule 1A to the 1949 act

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 19, page 305, leave out lines 33 to 35.
We are making great progress but this is a really important issue. I hope to get reassurance from the Minister and for her to understand what we are trying to achieve. The amendment is designed to firm up the objection process in schedule 19 to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot overturn a recommendation of the independent appeal body except in very limited circumstances. Proposed new paragraph 16(3)(a), which we seek to remove, states that the Secretary of State is bound to adhere to the recommendation of the independent appeal body on an objection unless that recommendation involves
an assessment of the significance
of a coastal access matter to someone with an interest in the land. That means that the Secretary of State can overturn the decision of the independent appeal body if the significance of the coastal access rights has been assessed. I would be interested to learn when such rights would not be assessed with regard to an objection. How could the appointed body make a recommendation about fair balance without considering the impact of the proposals on the landholder and the public? Indeed, the appeal body would be failing in its duty if it were not to consider the significance of matters to users and owners. It would, therefore, appear that sub-paragraph (3)(a) introduced as an amendment on Third Reading in another placeprovides a loophole, giving the Secretary of State the ability to overturn any decision made by the independent appeal body. I reiterate that we were glad to see the addition of the independent appeal process in another place. However, we are concerned that this sub-paragraph serves to dilute the authority of the independent bodys decisions.
When the appeal process was debated in another place and with industry bodies, it was repeatedly asserted that any objection or appeal process must meet the terms of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, in particular, provide an independent appeal process that had some validity and would not be overturned by the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State is able to overturn almost any decision, it makes a mockery of the so-called independent appeal process. That is not what was intended by the noble Lords in another place, or the industry bodies that were extensively consulted. Paragraph 16(3) of schedule 19 specifies the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might reasonably go against the recommendation of the independent appeals body and includes the ability to overturn recommendations that are perverse or irrational or for which there is insufficient evidence. We have no problem with the Secretary of State exercising his powers in such circumstances. However, through amendment 48, we seek to remove sub-paragraph (3)(a), which effectively gives him the power to overturn any decision. It completely undermines the whole objection appeals process. Indeed, peers, in the other place, have expressed their concerns about whether the provision even complies with the European convention on human rights. In order to ensure that the objection process is enacted as originally intended, we seek the removal of this provision.

Hugo Swire: The retention of sub-paragraph (3)(a) raises a question about why, if the Secretary of State has so little faith in an independent appeals body, he bothers to have one at all. If he wants to decide all these matters himself, why does he not just strike out the appeals body and make decisions himself based on each and every representation? It seems to be pretty straightforward. An independent appeals body, the decisions of which, in exceptional circumstances, the Secretary of State could overturnbut only with good reasonwill give comfort to landowners and land users alike. That is where the final decision in any arbitration should take place. In order to reassure all land users, the Minister should agree that our amendment is a positive step towards a solution.

Ann McKechin: This is an important debate and I would like to spend some time trying to answer concerns raised this afternoon and in another place. The objections mechanism set out in proposed new schedule 1A to the 1949 Act in schedule 19 to the Bill was of great concern to those in another place, many organisations and a number of committees. I appreciate the time and help that many gave to help us to introduce the process through which objections may be made. An objection can be made on the grounds that the proposals do not strike a fair balance within the meaning of clause 293, in so far as they relate to any of a list of particular matters, including the position of the route. The Secretary of State will make a determination, under section 52(1) of the 1949 Act and Natural Englands coastal access report, while having regard to any objections, Natural Englands comments, any representations forwarded to the appointed person and the recommendation of the appointed person.
Amendment 48 would delete paragraph 16(3)(a), which deals with a situation in which the appointed person considers a question of fact, and would change an amendment tabled by the Government in the Lords, the purpose of which was to ensure that if a report by an appointed person relating to an objection contained a statement of a finding or fact, the Secretary of State, in making the determination, would be bound by that finding, unless they were satisfied either that it was perverse or irrationalin one of the ways that a court might find an administrative decision perverse or irrational under judicial review before setting it asideor else that it
involves an assessment of the significance of a matter to any person with a relevant interest in land or to the public.

Angela Watkinson: I am not sure whether this is the correct time to raise this point, but I have received a letter from a constituent of mine who is also a naturist. Other Committee members might have received similar letters. My constituent was inquiring into their right to access beaches, the legal definition of the word annoyance and the question of alarm and distress. I apologise for springing this unexpected question on the Minister, but I would value her advice.

Ann McKechin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question; I have to say that that issue does not often arise in Scotland because it is usually too cold and wet. In Scotland, breach of the peace legislation usually deals with alarm to the lieges and other things. I will write to her on that particular point because, as she will appreciate, I want to get clarity. English law on the matter is very different, as I observed when I was down in London for the trooping of the colour ceremony. I happened to be walking along Piccadilly in the afternoon wearing my nice smart dress when I observed the naked bike ride coming down the road. I have to say that it was quite a shock because we never see anything like that in Scotland. That shows that that the laws in England and Scotland on that question are materially different.
I return to the issue that we are trying to debate today about the significance to any person and why it is important that the Secretary of State has the discretion to review it, which, in answer to the hon. Member for East Devon, would occur only in exceptional circumstances. We do not want to reverse the decisions in every case, but there are differences. First, it would be difficult to reconcile the role of the Secretary of State in approving the proposals as a whole with the fact that, in relation to a particular part of the proposals, the appointed person would have already taken a decision that was binding on the Secretary of State.
Secondly, there is a significant risk to consistency of approach, both in relation to other parts of the proposals that are the subject of the same report and in relation to proposals in other reports that relate to other parts of the English coastal route. There might well be generic types of topographyheadlands, for exampleon which it may be anomalous and unfair not to adopt a broadly consistent approach in the absence of local circumstances justifying a difference. There are likely also to be other parts of the route where similar considerations arise but which have not been the subject of objections. The question would then arise of whether the decision of the appointed person in relation to an objection relating to one part of the route constrained the Secretary of State from achieving consistency between the approach to that part and to other parts where no objections had been raised.
Thirdly, it would be difficult to require the inspector to consider everything that the Secretary of State would take into account. For example, it would not be appropriate to require the inspector to consider representations relating to other parts of the route that were not subject to objections, but those representations might mention considerations relevant to maintaining a consistent approach to the route that was subject of the report as a whole.
Fourthly, given the structure in which the Secretary of State has power to propose modifications himself, as in the 1949 Act that provides for it, the appointed person cannot know what they might be in advance. Modifications proposed by the Secretary of State in relation to contiguous land might necessitate consequential changes to the modifications proposed by the inspector in relation to the land subject to the objection, if the continuity of the route is to be preserved without a mismatch. The Secretary of State might propose more extensive and radical modification proposals that make the appointed persons decision on a particular spot no longer applicable. For example, in a case where the objection links to a part of a route that runs along an estuary or around a headland, the Secretary of State might decide that the route should not run up that section of estuary at all or should run across the neck of the headland. Where the proposed route crosses the neck of the headland, he might decide that the route should instead go around the periphery of the headland. Where the route crosses in front of a house, he might decide that it should skirt, not only behind that house, but also behind an area of land. In such cases the decision of the appointed person in relation to the spot subject to the objection might well be superseded by the more radical modifications proposed by the Secretary of State. Under those circumstances, it would be entirely inappropriate for the appointed persons decision still to be binding on the Secretary of State if he is going to make a modification.
Proposed new schedule 1A, paragraph 16(3)(a) to the Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 refers to a finding which
involves an assessment of the significance of a matter to any person with a relevant interest in land or to the public,
and is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State is not precluded from reaching a view on the significance to the landowner or the public of, for example, the proposed position of the route. That clarifies that such an assessment is not to be treated as a finding of fact for the purpose of the schedule. So, for example, where the assessment relates to the significance of the position of the route, whether to the landowner or to the public, either assessment may be regarded as a mixture of fact and judgment or opinion. A judgment as to such significance in not separable in any sensible way from the judgment of the relative significance of the position of the route to the landowner and the public, which is at the heart of the assessment of whether a fair balance has been struck. It is quite different from ordinary questions of fact.

Richard Benyon: Will the Minister clarify how the independent appeal process will work? Let us suppose that landowner A disagrees with the designation and takes the matter through the objections process as described in the document. To whom does he or she take it, and at what point does the Secretary of State get involved if they disagree with that decision?

Ann McKechin: The decision will normally be made by a planning inspectorate. It is an intermediate stage of considering representations, including representations of factual issues. That, together with the availability of a digital review, provides the normal decision-making process. As I said, there are circumstances where the Secretary of State might be required to intervene, particularly on the issue of consistency, or, for example, where they decide to modify a route. That would mean that some of the decisions taken would no longer be applicable or binding on the Secretary of State, as they might apply to a different piece of ground from the route that it was proposed to change.
The appointed person may have made an assessment of the underlying facts on which the assessment of significance is based. For instance, those could include the periods during which the landowner uses his land for a particular purposeI will come on to the different circumstances to which that may applythe extent of the land subject to that use for those periods, or the effect on the landowners ability to use his land for that purpose. The Secretary of State would be bound by the findings of the appointed persons in any of those things, unless the finding was irrational and could be set aside by the court on judicial review. We do not consider it appropriate that the Secretary of States discretion in the essential question on which they are required to decidethat of where fair balance liesshould be constrained so as to make them bound by the decision of the appointed person.

Richard Benyon: Does the Minister understand my concern that that would allow a hypothetically weak Secretary of State at some point in future to apply the vested interests of those who have badgered him in the golf club about a particular issue? [Interruption.] I am not talking about the present Secretary of State, who I am sure would not behave like that. However, he could effectively cast aside all the evidence put to an independent, quasi-judicial process, and overrule it. I entirely understand the point about the Secretary of State, but the issue that the Minister raises is a red herring. I accept that where the decision is perverse or made on the basis of false evidence, it should be overruled. Nevertheless, this has to be an independent process.

Ann McKechin: Any decision that is made by the Secretary of State, an elected representative, has to be accountable. That elected representative in turn has to be accountable to Parliament. The issue of precedent will have to be considered by any Secretary of State when they come to make that decision. It is not a free-for-all made in the back room of the golf clubfar from it. It is based on an administrative decision, and there are precedents that any Secretary of State, either now or in future, would be required to consider.

Hugo Swire: What about Secretaries of State who have not been democratically elected to anything by anyone?

Ann McKechin: That would refer to something in the future, and I cannot account for who would make that decision. Elected representatives are accountable to the House, whose proceedings in turn are transparent and on the record. Every Minister is subject to oral and written questions in the House and the other place.
I want to clarify the various stages of the procedure, because it is important to realise that it is a four-step procedure. An objection is made and the information is passed to the appointed personthe nominated person under the planning inspectorate. The appointed person then gathers and weighs up the evidence. They make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who makes the decision and who mustI reiterate musttake account of the recommendations of the appointed person, so it is not a decision in which he has complete freedom. He must consider the facts of the case and the recommendations made by the appointed person.
I also want to clarify the issue of the Bills compatibility with the ECHR, which was raised by the hon. Member for Newbury. The Bill has been fully compatible with the ECHR throughout its passage in the House and the other place. As I said, we had a useful and fruitful discussion regarding the issue of putting in place an intermediate process and that is why the clause has been put in the Bill. That is welcome. It shows that we want to ensure that the ability to address concerns is fully represented in the Bill. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon: Before I address those concerns, it is right to pause to consider the important intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster on behalf of naturists. Like many members of the Committee, I received an impassioned plea from naturists. They should be considered as interested parties by the Minister and, where possible, she should go to see the problem at first hand to hear their concerns in attire that they would find suitable.
The Minister mentioned the naked cyclists in London. I was appalled at the heavy-handed treatment by the Scottish police of the naked walker who walked from Lands End to John OGroats some years ago. I think he deserved some sort of medal for walking in the Scottish climate.

Ann McKechin: That is a matter for the minority SNP-led Government.

Richard Benyon: Returning to clothed matters and a very important point, I do not believe that the Minister can go round claiming that the Government have listened and yielded an independent right of appeal if they have the right to overrule a decision in every circumstance. I hear what the Minister says about the safeguards that have been put in the Bill, but to introduce this amendment on Third Reading in another place in a way that would allow a Secretary of State to overrule decisions reached in a quasi-judicial process is fundamentally wrong.
I will not press the issue at this point, because I want to reserve the right to return to it on Report. I am doing so because the important concerns raised by the pointy heads in another place who understand the ECHR much better than I do are in direct conflict with the assertions made by the Minister. I want to ensure that we are compliant with the ECHR legislation, so we need to revisit the matter on Report.

Ann McKechin: I have had some inspiration on the issue of naturists, and I can clarify that we have had meetings with naturists to discuss their concerns. Natural England has also written to address their concerns. I just want to put that on the record.

Richard Benyon: I hope the Committee will spare my blushes on that one, and I thank the Minister for her intervention. On the basis that we will return to the matter at some later stage in the proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 19 agreed to.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House

On resuming

Clause 297

Access to the coastal margin

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 297, page 200, line 35, at end insert
(10) In Schedule 1, Part 1, of the CROW Act 2000, after excepted land 13, insert
(14) Land used for the purpose of manufacturing, maintenance or storage of recreational vessels and equipment (including marinas, boatyards and yacht clubs)..

Charles Walker: Hear, hear.

Richard Benyon: With that endorsement ringing in my ears and a sense of end-of-term fever, I rise to speak to the amendment, which looks again at the issues relating to legitimate businesses around coastal Britain. We hope to ensure that diversions are made around commercial developments such as marinas, boatyards and yacht clubs, because that is essential. Such sites operate heavy machinery throughout the day, and that could pose a health and safety risk to individuals. Furthermore, operational sites such as marinas may contain high-value equipment that could cause a security risk as a result of unrestricted access.
If recreational boating facilities are not designated as excepted land under schedule 1 to the CROW Act, there must be provision in the Bill to exempt those sites and establish diversions around them. That is an attempt neither to stop the path nor to limit walkers enjoyment of the coastin fact, in many cases, their enjoyment will be enhanced, because they will be away from industrial and work environments and will perhaps enjoy better views. The amendment would ensure that safety and security are not compromised in the name of access. Coastal access designation under the Bill should create a pathway that passes those facilities, but not give powers to go through operational sites.

Huw Irranca-Davies: This response may seem like dĂ(c)jĂ vu, but it is not. It is not even nuancedit is something quite different. We need to return initially to schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which, as I have said, contains a list of categories of excepted land, which is not access land for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Act. It means that there is no right of access to such land under the provisions of the Act. I have listened with interest to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Newbury about the possible location of the coastal access route as it affects marinas and boatyards in particular. I also recognise that the other place discussed the issue to some extent during its consideration of the Bill. We in the Department have had a number of discussions with boating and marina organisations, such as the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association. I appreciate that they, too, are worried about how the provisions might impact on their activities, so I am glad that we have engaged with them extensively on such matters.
Before turning to the specific points raised by amendment 50, I wish to say that we have issued two papers that are particularly relevant to our discussions, the first of which is about the new section 3A order and the excepted land provisions required under the Bill. It sets out the main measures that we expect the order to follow and, in particular, our intentions for the various categories of excepted land that we intend either to leave unchanged or to amend, as they may apply to coastal land. I reconfirm our commitment to consult further on the final contents of the section 3A order, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for both Houses to debate and agree. The order will not come into force unless it is approved by such a resolution.
The second paper is entitled Accommodating future development needs. It sets out specific ways in which we can ensure that coastal access is appropriate and consistent with the needs of landowners, including future changes in land use. I hope that members of the Committee will allow me just a few moments to explain in some detail how we expect the provisions in the Bill and Natural Englands scheme to affect marinas and boatyards. The excepted land provisions under schedule 1 to the CROW Act set out the categories of land that are excepted for CROW right of access, wherever they occur.
Lord Davies of Oldham said during the debate in Committee in the other place, in respect of marinas, that land such as that
used for the purposes of recreational boating facilities (including marinas, boatyards and clubs)
and land used for
or associated with the use of, sporting facilities
would
generally be covered by the excepted land, buildings and their curtilage provision
so that there was no right of access to it.
He went on to say:
If it looked as though the buildings and curtilage provision did not make those excepted areas, we would undertake further consultation to see how to tackle that issue.[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. GC913-914.]
Amendment 50 would extend the excepted land category to land
used for the purpose of manufacturing...or storage of recreational vessels and equipment (including marinas, boatyards and yacht clubs).
Let me be clear that we strongly hold the view that such land would generally be covered by the excepted land, buildings and curtilage provision. There is no fixed definition of curtilage, but when the open access provisions of part I of the CROW Act were introduced, the Department helpfully issued guidelines to help identify what was meant by the excepted land categories, which are also in part I of the Act, with the general caveat that
guidelines do not provide an authoritative interpretation of the legislation, which is a matter for the courts.
We provided guidelines on the meaning of curtilage, which state:
The term curtilage is not defined, but it generally means a small area, forming part and parcel with the house or building to which it is attached.
It is usually an area of land that is used, or that is intended to be used, ancillary to that house or building. The guidelines also state:
In most cases the extent of curtilage will be clear: typically, an enclosure around a dwelling containing a garden, garage and side passage; a walled enclosure outside a barn, or a collection of buildings grouped around a farm house and farm yard.
Most people would understandand understand in a legal sensewhat curtilage is. The guidelines were drawn up primarily with open country in mind, and we will review them following the passage of the Bill to ensure that they are appropriate for coastal access provisions.

Richard Benyon: I just missed what the Minister said. To which legislation do the guidelines refer?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The guidelines were issued in respect of part I of the CROW Act. When that measure was introduced, the Department produced guidelines to make the meaning clear. We recognised that there was no legislative or authoritative interpretation, and we thought that it would be helpful to issue guidelines on what we meant and how it could be interpreted. If the Bill is enacted, we will review the guidelines to ensure that they are appropriate to its coastal access provisions.
I recognise the concerns that organisations such as the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association have expressed, not least about safety and security. For example, it could be necessary to keep the public out of places where boats are stored. We have no intention of seeking to interfere with the normal running of any marina or yacht club or with the management of facilities. Those facilities are meant to encourage visitors. We have to get this right: some marinas want to encourage visitors to take advantage of public facilities such as bars, restaurants and shops.
If the route was on land that did not fall within the excepted land category, which I mentioned, we expect Natural England to take full account of the safety of visitors and the security of the site when it proposes the position of the coastal route. If necessary, Natural England will discuss with the owner or operator the possibility of making a direction to exclude or restrict access when appropriate. For example, it might be necessary to close the marina area at night, and that could be done.
The circumstances of any individual marina or boatyard will be considered as part of a full and open consultation process led by Natural England, which we have discussed in some detail. The discussions will consider the most appropriate place to put the route on land that is not excepted land, where it is necessary to ensure the continuity of the coastal route. In doing so, Natural England and, in due course, the Secretary of State, will be required under the Billas we keep repeatingto
aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public...and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land,
as set out in clause 291.
It may be in the interests of the owners for routes to be situated close to a marina or yacht club, as they recognisesome landowners and land operators made this point to usthat it may provide them with the economic opportunities that they want. The interests of those with a relevant concern in affected land have been strengthened by the introduction of schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, as introduced by schedule 19 to the Bill, which we debated earlier in our proceedings. The Secretary of State will make a determination under section 52(1) of the 1949 Act on Natural Englands coastal access report, having regard to any objections that have been made, Natural Englands comments on them, any representations forwarded to the appointed person, and the recommendation of the appointed person.
As we discussed earlier, in respect of any future developments of a marina, boatyard or yacht club, the line of the route and the spreading room are not permanently fixed. The Bill enables Natural England to review them and propose changes to the Secretary of State, which will again be subject to a full consultation and representation process at a later date. The CROW Act is framed in such a way that it does not prevent changes in land use, since land can become excepted from the right of access at any time if some change or development occurs, making it fall into one of the categories of excepted land. I can confirm that if a proposal for a new development on the coastal margin is made, Natural England will need to consider an alternative route around the marina or boatyard. I can reassure hon. Members that changes in use and future developments will be taken into account.
Finally, for the benefit of the Committee, I reiterate that Natural Englands scheme will set out the approach it will take to implement its coastal access duty. The scheme, I repeat, will be the subject of full public consultation once the Bill becomes law. There will be a further chance for those with a specific interest to make an input into the final scheme, which has to be approved by the Secretary of State.

Charles Walker: Let us take the example of someone living in a home by the coast. Beneath them, they see the coastal pathway going past the marina 500 yards from their house. All of a sudden, the marina puts in an application for development, and that person discovers that the pathway will be moved up into their garden. Would that be grounds for appeal to the local authority or Natural England against the planning application?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That would reopen the consultation. Any person would be able to make representations on that. It would not be the case that an extending marina or boatyard could say to Natural England, You now need to find the alternative route, and the only one available is straight up over the hill and through that area. Natural England would have to reopen the procedure for consultation and seek representations again.

Charles Walker: Could the new properties impacted by the moving of the coastal pathway seek some form of compensation from the marina? The marina will be making a commercial gain by expansion, and there might be a consequential cost, such as a devaluation of property, to those people who suddenly find the coastal road or pathway at the end of their garden.

Huw Irranca-Davies: First, I want to make one thing clear. Gardens are listed as excepted land, so the pathway will certainly not go through anyones garden. If the pathway goes at the base of the garden, we have not entertained the issue of compensation, for reasons that have been debated ad nauseam in the other place, but we have strengthened the ability to make objections and to appeal to an independent person. If the householder who owned the garden wanted to pursue compensation with the marina, it would be entirely up to them, but it certainly would not fall within Natural Englands remit to take any part in that.

Charles Walker: I am trying to make the point that the commercial gain to the marina could result in a material loss to the farm or business that finds the coastal pathway moved near their property.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand the concern. It may or may not lead to a material loss. There is a fair bit of evidence that the passing traffic on a coastal path or a coastal margin along many properties has negligible impact on their value. Indeed, it may enhance their value if people can take advantage of some of the benefits of accommodation, cafĂ(c)s and this, that or the other. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but it is not pertinent to the clause. He raises an interesting question about whether an altruistic marina might want to engage in discussions with neighbours who are affected by re-routing.
The scheme would be the subject of full consultation once the Bill becomes law. That would provide a further chance for those with interests to make an input into the final scheme. I would expect Natural England to give thought to, and guidance on, the approach that it will take under the scheme when a marina, a boatyard or a yacht club is situated by the coast.
In conclusion, it will be the Secretary of States duty to consider carefully the possible location of the coastal access route as it may affect marinas and boatyards, based on the advice and recommendations from Natural England. His determination of the route will be made taking into account the recommendations from the Planning Inspectorate, in accordance with any objections processed under schedule 1A. I can assure the Committee that a decision on the route will be taken only after extensive consultation with landowners and managers. In the light of the various safeguards that I have just outlined, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne raised an important issue, which we perhaps have not considered enough in our deliberations. On the small proportion of the route where there will be conflict, we imagine that the conflict will be between a landowner or interest and the needs of the path. Very often it may be a triangulated conflict. If one party sought to amend the route, it could disadvantage another. We perhaps need to discuss that a bit more. It comes down to one of my essential problems with this approach: we are putting enormous faith in one organisation to get this right. I have no reason to believe that it will not get it right, but it is not perfect to assume that a Government agency can take on enormous amounts of responsibility. On the first amendment to this part of the Bill, the word that I used to describe that approach was woolly. We are going to leave a lot of ends untied.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He has probably had representations from marinas and boatyards as well as the federations, which have argued from both perspectives. Many of them want to have access but would like the opportunity to apply for exemptions where necessary, rather than have a blanket approach to exemptions in the Bill that may militate against any economic opportunity.

Richard Benyon: That is absolutely right. Those involved want managed access, which we all hope to achieve. On the basis that the specific guidelines under part I of CROW will be reviewed, interested parties will be offered every opportunity to have their concerns raised with the Minister. We may have to revisit this later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 297, page 200, line 35, at end add
(10) In Schedule 1 (excepted land for purposes of Part 1 Part II Supplementary Provisions) at end insert
(18) The land which is excepted land by virtue of paragraph 4 does not include any land used or defined as a park
(a) over which the line taken by the English coastal route passes or
(b) which is adjacent to and within a specified distance of the line..
The purpose of the amendment is to draw a distinction between the definition of a park and a garden, which is set out in schedule 1 of CROW as one item:
Land used as a park or garden.
I think that we can all agree that putting gardens into coastal access legislation would not be appropriate and that people tramping across someones garden because of a coastal path is not something that we would want in the Bill. Nor would we want to revisit, with regards to parks, schedule 1 of the CROW Act, because untrammelled access to a park inland is a potential difficulty, as that schedule reflected. However, coastal access would, by definition, not be across a park but at its margins. In the vast majority of the country, coastal access around the edges of parks that happen to abut the coast is probably not a difficult concept. We might think that this is not a serious issue now because there are many such coastal paths and everyone is happy about them. However, it is a real issue in terms of what is in the CROW Act and what might be in this legislation.
An example that springs to mind is one close to my constituency. Part of the Solent way goes within about 150 yd of it, so with a couple of very long strides it is a constituency issue. It is a 60-mile coastal path, mostly organised by Hampshire country council, going from Emsworth near Chichester on the eastern side to Milford-on-Sea on the western side. It is a 60-mile coastal path, of which only 45 miles are coastal. The remaining 15 miles are not a coastal path because Hampshire country council has not been able to persuade the owners of large estates to the west of the Solent that there should be access around the coast on those estates. Consequently, not only does the coastal path not do what it says on the tin, but when someone arrives from the ferry at Hythe, which fortunately runs all year round, they are treated to an interesting diversion.
I know that it is not possible to print maps on the record, but I have an interesting map here, which I will briefly describe. The person comes up to a roundabout and then has to traverse for more than a mile down the A326, in between a row of pylons and the road, and then turn left and go down another road for about 5 or 6 miles to the B3054, at which point they are more than 5 miles inland. Therefore, at that point a coastal path the Solent way is not, and nowhere on the map can we see any coast whatever.

Hugo Swire: How many of those 15 miles are currently defined as parkland?

Alan Whitehead: Almost all of them, in one way or another. There are two large estates in particular, along with some farming land. Those estates are the Beaulieu estate and the Pylewell estate, neither of which has agreed a schedule of access to areas that abut the coast.

Hugo Swire: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that the pieces of land that abut the coast on those estates are parkland?

Alan Whitehead: The land is a combination of estate land, parkland and land that is owned by farmers, but the overall issue is that of

Hugo Swire: On a point of order, Mr. Pope. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are discussing a tight clause about parkland. The hon. Gentleman has referred to 15 miles of coast which, by his own admission, is not all parkland, so I cannot see why we are debating the clause at all.

Greg Pope: I can see why that has been raised as a point of order, but the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is not out of order at the moment. I am listening intently to what he has to say. If he strays out of order, I will advise him.

Alan Whitehead: For the sake of clarity, I am not claiming that all of the 15-mile diversion is caused by the existence of parkland, but that a substantial proportion of it is. The diversion is 15 miles because it does not go along the coast; it goes inland for a substantial area. That is what I was attempting to demonstrate. The key point is whether, if the Bill became an Act tomorrow, I would be able to say with hand on heart that the Solent way was actually a coastal path, which is what it is intended to be. The legislation would, I think, lead ramblers and many others to believe that it was not classified as such. Because of the Bills continued exemption of parkland, following schedule 1 of CROW, I fear that the Solent way would not be classified as a coastal path.
An accommodation may well be agreed upon as a result of consultation and discussion with Natural England, the parkland estates and the farmers concerned. At the very least, I hope that it will be emphasisedboth by the Committee and, on a wider basis, on the promulgation of the legislationthat there will be a strong expectation that the negotiations will be based on the assumption that an accommodation will be reached. Indeed, the legislation includes the possibility of issuing a part 3A notice, should that not occur.

David Jones: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has a local interest in the two estates that he has mentioned, but has he carried out an assessment of the extent of English coastline that comprises parkland?

Alan Whitehead: I do not have to hand exactly what proportion of the English coastline comprises parkland. However, I can furnish the hon. Gentleman with a number of other examples where what should be a coastal path is substantially diverted because of the existence of parkland or estates that have a similar effect to what I have described. For example, the Lee Abbey estate on the Devon coast, the Benacre estate on the Suffolk coast and Grimston Garth on the east Yorkshire coast have differing circumstances that nevertheless cause substantial diversions of a path that would otherwise be unbroken along a stretch of coast.
The Solent way is one of the longest coastal routes in the south of England and also has one of the longest areas of diversion, but the issue also affects other areas along the English coastline. It is therefore not a side issue as far as the legislation is concerned. The issue has considerable potential to lead to incomplete coastal paths. We may decide that an amendment would be appropriate or that other methods can be found to reach the outcome that I think we all want; but if we do not decide on either of those courses, I fear that we will end up with either deadlock in the negotiations or incomplete paths.

Andrew George: I am interested in the case that the hon. Gentleman is making. Would not the problem that he describesit is clearly a problem, particularly in his areabe better resolved by revisiting the definition of parkland, rather than approaching it in the way that the amendment does?

Alan Whitehead: That is an interesting suggestion and might be an appropriate way forward. One of the purports of the amendment is also to provide space for the path, along with access to it. There is also the issue, which we discussed earlier, of how to ensure that that is defined as the breathing space for the path, how it is marked and what arrangements and negotiations might be appropriate. If the arrangements were not appropriate, the amendments aim would clearly be overthrown, inasmuch as access to the parkland exempted under CROW would effectively be restored by an amendment. Maybe an appropriate way forward would be to consider what parkland consists of as far as coastal walks are concerned.
My aim in moving the amendment is to see whether, in one way or another, we can resolve the issue, which I think will arise in future negotiations by English Nature, and ensure that the aim of the coastal path is to be as complete as possible.

Richard Benyon: The point touched on by the hon. Member for St. Ives is crucial. We need to define what is meant by a park. If the word were thrown out to a vox pop, people would probably have in mind something laid out by Capability Brownno relation to Inability Brown, who went into politics.

Hugo Swire: Or Culpability Brown.

Richard Benyon: Indeed.
People would think of a large, open area with mature trees, over which access along one side, on the coastal margin, would not have too huge an impact on the owner. The truth is that in many areas along our coast, it is difficult to distinguish where a park starts and a garden finishes, and vice versa. That distinction was brought out clearly under the CROW Act, which attempted to define it thus:
A park may include ornamental gardens, water features or other man-made scenic vistas. A garden is usually enclosed land near a building. It typically includes areas of lawn, flower borders and other cultivated plants.
That is the best stab that anyone has had at defining the two.
When the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discussed whether parks and gardens should remain excepted land, the Ministers predecessor, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), said:
I foresee a great deal of conflict, I foresee a great deal of uncertainty, and I think it would take up a great deal of the time and effort of Natural England if parks and gardens were not excepted.
He visited a number of contentious areas, and said:
I saw a number of examples of gardens of different sizes that would make it very difficult to make a judgment call as to where you would have the definition
that is, as to whether they were parks or gardens.
Lord Davies of Oldham said in Committee in the other place:
we have no intention of ploughing arbitrarily through peoples gardens and...that is not the legislations intent.[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 914.]
That is fine, but the distinction between a park and a garden is not always clear. Gardens may be park-like in their design. I do not want to get into a nuanced debate about it, but what is the difference between a large garden and a small park? I can understand peoples intentions of securing access, but such problems can be resolved. There may be areas where they persist, but I believe that they can be secured through a voluntary approach and reasoned debate.
Mention has been made of the Beaulieu estate. I happen to know that Bucklers Hard, which would be near the constituency of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, is part of the estate or at least or very close to it. It would surely be in the interests of everyone living in Bucklers Hard for as many tourists to go there as possibleit is a very picturesque part of England. I imagine that it is in the interests of the estate to allow access to Bucklers Hard.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is speaking a lot of sense about the definitional difficulties with parks and gardens. During the coastal access part of the Bill, we have had much debate on the asks and on the implied trust in Natural England to carry out and balance this fair duty to all persons, taking it forward in a fair, considered and consultative way. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an equal ask of large landowners to engage and get involved in the spirit behind the legislation by opening up some of those parks and gardensthat is not all I have to say: the remaining 30 per cent. is not all parks and gardensthat ramblers and others want access to, and that where there is no good reason not to, landowners should engage through that sort of voluntary approach to see what can be done?

Richard Benyon: I always believe that the voluntary approach is the better one. If that fails, we can have further discussions. However, I also believe that there would be considerable financial implications for smaller parks where access is provided and where the capital value of the property would therefore depreciate. The perception among possible purchasers of properties, therefore, is a realistic factor in terms of those peoples needs. Privacy is a concept that we need to engage with. I am not standing here to make an impassioned defence against the impact on a vast area of parkland. I think that we are talking about a very small percentage of the 30 per cent., and a very small percentage of that is areas where there will be or is conflict. The Bill as currently drafted, with those exceptions, is the right way to proceed, and I hear what the Minister says about revisiting the issue in time.

Hugo Swire: The issue is one of definition. I fundamentally believe that there should be as much access to the coast as possible. I believe that a voluntary agreement in some difficult places is better, but for me the bottom line is that people should have access to the coast where possible. However, I also believe in peoples privacy and the rights of private ownership. Too often, we can neglect peoples rights when we come to allowing access to all, because with ownership comes responsibility. I do not see much in the Bill other than the transference of responsibility to the farmer or landowner, with not much financial or other compensation.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test referred to two places near his constituency that he felt were blocking the extension of the coastal path in his area. He alighted on one rather bad example, which is the Beaulieu estate. I do not know it well, but I have been there. I would have thought that it was one of the most commercially minded estates in the country, what with the motor museum, which is a huge attraction for tourists around the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury referred to Bucklers Hard, which is a picturesque village in the Beaulieu estate. It has a public right of way already, although it is difficult to stop people veering off, and people are charged to look at the village. Appalling, one might say. How dare they charge people to look at the village? Why do they charge people to look at the village? Because they put the money back into preserving the uniqueness of the village. There are also surrounding issues, but I do not want to stray too much into the esoteric.

Alan Whitehead: To make it clear for the record, I have great admiration for the public work of the Beaulieu estate, with its access to Bucklers Hard, the village of Beaulieu, the motor museum and the area all around there. However, there are wider issues of access abroad in the estate, which are unrelated to access to, for example, Bucklers Hard. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about how that village may best be managed. It is the question of how the furthest-flung areas of the estate and parkland comprising Beaulieu may be accessed in a controlled, managed and agreed way. That is the central issue, rather than the question of access to the central areas, which is a matter of tourist management, which Beaulieu is adept at and does well.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman makes an important clarification. As I recall, there are issues that date way back concerning access to the private beach on the Beaulieu estate, and there is some resentment that it, too, is not open to the public. However, that is private land and I agree that such issues can often be resolved with the landowner, rather than by legislation.
I have said already that you would not allow me to veer off into the esoteric, Mr. Pope, but we need to think carefully about that issue. The CROW Act is interesting, and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford recognised the difficulty in defining what is a garden and what is a park. Before we rush to legislate, I urge the Committee to consider the uniqueness of what we have in this country: the manicured landscape, the extraordinary buildings and the way they are married and interact. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury mentioned Capability Brown, and one could also mention Humphrey Repton, who was, with his red book, perhaps as great a landscaper as Brown, although a little laterin many ways he was his successor.
There is a misunderstanding about the English landscape: that somehow it has always been there and is natural, including the hill forts. But it is not. It is there because landowners, farmers and the users of this land over generations have planted copses, moved hills and created something wonderful and unique in the world. The hon. Member for Telford, who chairs the all-party group on world heritage sites, would undoubtedly agree with that assertion.
When we talk about access to parks, we must be careful what we say, because often a park is, or is part of, a garden. When does it cease to be a park? There have been times, in war for instance, when the majority of parks in this country were ploughed up and turned over to agriculture. Does it lose its status as parkland if it is ploughed, if animals are grazed on it or if it is used for a different purpose, such as shooting, which is an incredibly important sport in the west country and is worth millions of pounds? Often in the south-west, and in other places around this island, parkland can go down to an estuary or to the sea and is the garden to the house. If, regardless of that, access to the land is allowed as a right, with spreading room, that alters the relationship between the landscape and the building that sits at its heart.
We should, of course, look towards opening up our coastal paths, but we must always bear in mind that there is something as important, and perhaps more so: the unique relationship between the buildings of this country, their parklands, the human beings who like to walk there and occupy them and the future generations who will benefit from them.

Andrew George: On that last point, the hon. Member for East Devon is absolutely right to highlight the relationship between buildings and the parks and gardens, or curtilage, around them, particularly in the larger country houses, of which we in the United Kingdom as a whole are rightly proud. We have a proud heritage of impressive buildings, and the context in which they are placed, with the parks and gardens that surround them, is important. However, such a context is not in itself undermined by allowing a public right of way across a small portion of it. That is an issue that clearly needs to be resolved.
I am not sure that the amendment, as drafted, is the best way to resolve the issue. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, by bringing forward the debate, which he was right to do, has articulated a concern that I do not have much experience of. Speaking on behalf of my own part of the worldwest Cornwall and the Isles of ScillyI must say that we do not really have any of the type of large estates that, as the hon. Gentleman said, exist in the Solent area, so I have no experience of the type of scale that he is talking about, in terms of ownership of very substantial areas of land. The scale of those areas of land clearly has an impact upon the ability to create coastal access of the kind that I think we are all keen to establish.
In the example of the Solent way, a right of way would need to be diverted many miles from the coast to satisfy the requirements of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman sees them, in terms of the definition of what might constitute park land. That is clearly a matter of great concern. Until he had raised this issue, I was not aware that such a diversion might be necessary. Hence my intervention, to say that perhaps we need to look again at the definition of park land.
We may come up with a definition of park land that will satisfy the hon. Member for East Devon and others, in terms of the description of what that land might be, its context and, perhaps in some cases, the historic basis on which it was originally created, possibly centuries ago. However, I would have thought that the concept that we, as legislators, should attempt to preserve is the integrity of that land; that is, the integrity of the countryside itself and the associated buildings. I am not sure that public access necessarily undermines that integrity.
What is perhaps most important is to protect privacy. Certainly, the booklet prepared by Natural England on park land considers the issue within the context of the provision on privacy. I would have thought that it is privacy and potential damagethose two elementsthat we are trying to address here.
In coming up with a satisfactory definition of park land for the purposes of the Bill, the two concepts of proportionality and reasonableness should also be applied. If one is talking about the scale of diversion that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test described, we come back to a theme that has underpinned a lot of the debate on this part of the Bill, which is achieving a fair balance. I think that a fair balance can be more effectively achieved if one also throws into the melting pot the concept of what is proportionate. Clearly, a 5-mile diversion away from the coastline is not proportionate. It is important to find a tool that will give a proportionate response and giving that tool to Natural England would clearly help in finding a resolution to this problem. It is also important to find a reasonable solution.
Providing Natural England with the tools to achieve a fair balance, in the context of defining park land and trying to achieve the fundamental objective of providing a continuous coastal footpath, is clearly what we are trying to do. I would hope that we could, on Report, look at the issue again. Perhaps the Government could come forward with an amendment which would achieve that fair balance and satisfy the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I do not think that we need an amendment, but I would like to begin this part of our deliberations by putting a statement on record to see if any member of the Committee will demur from it. If we proceed with our proposals on the coastal path, the coastal margin and parks and gardens, which I am committed to, and any future Secretary of Statewhether it is the hon. Member for St. Ives, the hon. Member for Newbury, or my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West and Southampton, Testfinds that no dialogue has happened and that no additional land within what we can generally term parks has been opened up, we will have failed.
Part of our debate here is whether we can proceed in a way that is to do with voluntarism, dialogue and consensus, and can look at those places, where appropriate, where it does not damage habitat or the interface that has been talked about between the fashioning of that particular landscape and environment. There is a tradition of people straying on to such environments. Traditionally, they were either known as trespassers or poachersmyself not included, not that I would admit to it. However, if we return here without having made progress on this issue through constructive dialogue, we will have failed.

Richard Benyon: The Minister sets a very important challenge, which should be listened to by all the interested parties that represent landowning interests and walkers interests. Accommodation can be found. The worst thing that we can do is legislate for the lowest common denominatorthe cartoon farmer who says get off my land and is completely unapproachable in any form of dialogue. However, the Minister puts a very important challenge down. We can see how that goes and revisit it in the future. I entirely accept his reasonable approach.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that we have consensus across the Committee. We have to put this to the test and see that it deliversand see that it delivers, not if it deliversthat it delivers. If it does not, as I will come to in a moment, we might need to revisit that. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Reading West for raising this important issue. I recognise the desire of individual walkers and the Ramblers Association to try to obtain access to the remaining 30 per cent. of the coast that there is still no access to. There are some good reasons why we do not and will not have access to 100 per cent. of the coast. However, there are some parts that people would look at and say that there seems to be no good reason for that, only an unwillingness to enter into a dialogue.
As I have noted in previous discussions, the Secretary of State may, by order, modify the provisions of part 1 of the CROW Act in their application to land which is coastal margin. Concerns and questions about what changes may be made to the categories of accepted land, as they affect land that is coastal margin

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

Greg Pope: Obviously, it would be wholly wrong of me to point out that the fast train from Euston to Preston leaves at 4.30 pm.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Briefly, parks were considered by both the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee, which were attended by a number of hon. Members. Both Committees made recommendations: the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee agreed with the Governments approach, but the Joint Committee felt that the Government should give careful thought to what was included in the parks and gardens exemption and noted that Parliament might want to return to that issue with the introduction of the Bill.
In response to those two Committees, we said that we would give further detailed consideration to the issue. We have done that, and I have heard a wide range of views. Some say that the parkland should not be excepted in any way where it is suitably described as a margin, and others dwell on the continuity of the route. There are also arguments about privacy, as we feared, and the amenity value related to parkland also needs to be taken into account. They are all important pointsit is a complex issue. Let me make it clear that we do not want the coastal route to take long and unnecessary inland detours. However, we also understand the concerns of landowners. We have touched on the definitional issues already. I believe that the problem is about a small number of difficult cases, where land is not integral to the privacy and enjoyment of the household, but presents a considerable blockage to any coastal route. I do not want to use a heavy sledgehammer to crack an albeit sometimes tough nut.

Alan Whitehead: Should a voluntary approach be adopted, albeit with the possibility of making a section 3A order, is it the case that a landlord or a park owner may dedicate, outside the Bill, a strip of land for coastal access or a right of way without incurring arrangements under the Bill?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend is right. If people were to dedicate a strip of land for the coastal path, or to allow a right of way, it could form an integral part of the coastal path, and I welcome that sort of approach.
What we have talked about is the good will of landowners towards the public, who wish to share the pleasures of a wonderful coastline. I am prepared to give the good will a trial and see if we can find agreed ways for the route to go through without having to legislate for the small number of cases I mentioned. I believe that this Committee has unanimously made clear that it wishes to see that good will be demonstrated by landowners in discussions with Natural England. I propose that we give the system a trial without making any changes to the excepted land categories of parks and gardens. The trial should investigate how great the problems are and how evident the good will is. I will ask Natural England to try to resolve the problems by voluntary means, particularly where it will lead to secure access along the routeperhaps along the lines that my hon. Friend has suggested, for instance, by the dedication of land for public access under the CROW Act provisions.
In the case that the trial approach does not work, the Secretary of State retains the powers to amend the excepted land provisions at a later date by order, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houseswe have talked about the fact that it will be a pretty lively debate. In our response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, we said that Natural England will return to Parliament to report on progress after 10 years. I suggest that Natural England should undertake an earlier interim review and report to Parliament specifically on issues that have arisen as a result of parks being excepted land, and on the success of any voluntary agreements to ensure secure public access along the route through parks. That report should take place within five years of Royal Assent.
I hope that that approach will meet with favour from the Committee, and that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment with the assurance that we will have the opportunity to review the matter and revisit the decision, if necessary.

Alan Whitehead: I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friends arguments. I welcome the suggestions for a review and that we apply good will on the basis of a clear understanding of what we would like to achieve with the Bill. Therefore, in the spirit of good will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7Access to the coastal margin (No. 2)
(1) Schedule 2 to the CROW Act is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(c), at the end, insert or in the case of that part of coastal margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse..

Andrew George: I will not extend my remarks on the new clause to the clause stand part debate. The purpose of the new clause is to address the issue of dogs and horses. In the debates on the Bill so far, we have not had sufficient opportunity to debate the accessibility of the coastal route by equestrians, dog owners or disabled peoplewe may wish to return to the issue of disabled people on Report. Although groups, including the National Federation of Bridleway Associations and the British Horse Society, have accepted that full access to the coastal path would be inappropriatethey do not expect thatthey remain concerned that the development of the coastal path could in some areas reduce their existing rights of access, such as the non-statutory right of access to the foreshore.
Horse riders and cyclists have access to only 22 per cent. of the current public rights of way network and only 7 per cent. of the network that currently exists around the English coast. Public access to the foreshorethe land between the high and low water markswith horses both ridden and driven has been enjoyed for centuries and is still enjoyed today. That is an issue for Crown land in England and Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall. Historical research suggests that that is an ancient common law right. English and Scottish law are the same in this respect, and non-discriminatory public access to the coast is now, as I understand it, a statutory right in Scotland.
The Bill proposes a statutory right of access to the coastal margin, which includes the foreshore and the beach, but only on foot. Experience with the recording of public rights of way under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the designation of access land under CROW suggests that where a statutory right for a limited sector of the publicthat is, those on footis legally recorded, the ability for the rest of the public to enjoy their unrecorded common law rights is thus compromised. There may be issues regarding access to the foreshore for other types of recreational users, such as those who need to bring buggies down to the coast to go kite surfing. The Minister might be able to clarify that.

Hugo Swire: Other parts of the foreshore are owned neither by the Crown nor by the duchythey are privately owned. I do not know who briefed the hon. Gentleman on that. There are also other places where it would be patently wholly inappropriate to allow dogs to roam freely on the coastal path. I am thinking of the swannery at Abbotsbury in Dorset, where there are nesting cygnets and swans. The last thing in the world one would want for the balance of nature is to have a lot of dogs running amuck among them.

Andrew George: I am not calling for that. As I said in my opening remarks, that is not what is being called for. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not catch that.
The matter of unrecorded common law rights being compromised is particularly problematic for horse riders. There was all-party consensus in the other place that something needs to be done for horse riders and the Government seemed to accept that there were non-statutory public access rights to the coastal margin that need to be protected, as in the clause we have just debated.
In Committee in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Greaves proposed a similar amendment to the one before us, which would have clarified the situation by ensuring that those with a horse or a dog are not included in the general access restrictions contained in schedule 2 of the CROW Act. That amendment was withdrawn, but Lord Davies undertook to reconsider the issue. He made it clear that he understood the concerns and that there should be clarity that the existing rights of horse riders are not affected by any new right of access to the coast. He recognised that there is an issue that clearly needs to be resolved. It is worth, therefore, taking another look at the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Greaves in order to probe the Governments position on the impact of the development of the coastal path and the existing non-statutory rights of access that exist in relation to the foreshore.

Ann McKechin: I am sympathetic to the concerns that the hon. Member for St. Ives raised about horse riders and their existing customary use of the foreshore. It is important to point out that there is no general common law right to ride on the foreshore in England. In certain places there is a customary right to ride or there may be a permissive right to do so, but that will be due to local circumstances and it is not a national right country-wide. It was the subject of debate in the other place and of an amendment tabled by the Baroness Mallalieu to ensure the preservation of existing rights. In response to those concerns, the Government introduced an amendment to require Natural England to make it clear that existing rights are not affected by the new right of access on foot that the Bill provides for.
The new provision at clause 297(7) requires Natural England to ensure that, in relation to coastal margin land, the public are informed that the legal position is that the right of access conferred by the CROW Act does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land. It also makes it clear that a separate code of conduct may be drawn up for coastal land.
The hon. Gentlemans proposal would go further than the existing provision. As the hon. Member for East Devon has pointed out, giving horse riders a right of access to the entire foreshore that forms part of the coastal margin is not always appropriate. A blanket approach would not include areas that require special protection from animals running loose, which would not be helpful.
Any amendments to the provisions in schedules 1 and 2 of the CROW Act for the purposes of coastal access will be introduced through an order made under section 3A, which is provided for in clause 297 of the Bill. We have published a paper containing the main changes that we propose to make, and that paper has been made available to the hon. Members. We will consult on the proposals, which will then be subject to affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.
Finally, the hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned the important point of access for the disabled. As this is a stand part debate, I can confirm that Natural England will consider contributing financially to the creation of improved rights where it makes sense, which is likely to include action to facilitate access by people with mobility problems along some suitable sections of the coast. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and on that basis withdraw his amendment.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for her response and the clarification. Her interpretation of the Bill as it currently stands, as amended in another place, is that it does not affect existing rights. The societies and organisations that I mentioned in my opening remarks will be reassured by that, which is very welcome indeed. To defend myself from the accusation that I am trying to offer unbridled rights to the coast and to the foreshore for all horse riders and dog owners, I made it clear that that is not what was intended in my opening remarksI am probing the issue. I am not asking for complete access, which would be inappropriate and which the hon. Member for East Devon and the Minister fear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 297accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. (David Wright.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 14 June at half-past Ten oclock.